## Facts

- Sidney J. Meistrich was injured when he fell while ice skating at a rink operated by Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.
- Evidence indicated the rink departed from its usual ice-preparation procedure, producing ice that was unusually hard and therefore too slippery for an average skater using ordinarily sharpened skates.
- From Meistrich’s description of the fall, a jury could infer the ice condition caused the fall.
- Before falling, Meistrich noticed his skates were slipping on turns.
- Despite noticing the slipping, he stayed on the ice and skated “cross-hand” with another skater.
- A jury returned a verdict for the defendant after the trial court instructed the jury on negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence of negligent ice preparation was sufficient to submit negligence to the jury.
2. Whether the evidence permitted submission of contributory negligence based on plaintiff’s continued skating after noticing the slippery condition.
3. Whether the trial court’s assumption-of-risk instruction was erroneous and prejudicial, requiring reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the defense verdict, but modified the reasoning.
- The Court held there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s negligence to go to the jury.
- The Court held contributory negligence was supported by evidence and was properly a jury question.
- The Court held the assumption-of-risk charge was misleading and confusing, including an unintelligible insertion of “proximate cause” terminology and an overbroad suggestion that knowledge of risk alone barred recovery.
- The Court ordered a new trial with proper instructions; both negligence and contributory negligence remained for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff presents a jury question on negligence when evidence permits a finding that the defendant departed from reasonable practices and that the resulting condition proximately caused the injury.
- Contributory negligence is for the jury when evidence supports a finding that the plaintiff, after perceiving a danger, acted unreasonably and thereby contributed to the injury.
- “Assumption of risk” has a primary sense (no duty or no breach) and a secondary sense (a defense after negligence is shown).
- Secondary assumption of risk is functionally a form of contributory negligence and should be analyzed under ordinary negligence standards: whether a reasonably prudent person in plaintiff’s position would have incurred the risk.
- Jury instructions are reversible error when they conflate or misstate contributory negligence and assumption of risk, or suggest that mere knowledge of risk automatically bars recovery without addressing the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the defense verdict and ordered a new trial because the jury was given a confusing and legally incorrect assumption-of-risk instruction; while negligence and contributory negligence were properly jury issues, secondary assumption of risk must be treated as contributory negligence and submitted under a reasonableness standard.


Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc., 31 N.J. 44, 155 A.2d 90 (N.J. 1959)